If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It is tough to tell the two candidates apart without visuals anyway. Obama has been an awful President, but has also been the best President since Eisenhower. Romney is one of the best Republican candidates in a while, but that is not really a ringing endorsement. Obama is going to win handily and nothing will change anyway, though.

You know we do not always agree, but i always know you will give an honest answer, not like most of the partisan honks on most forums.

Theres a bit of a difference between an entire party and a individual politician. All parties continue to evolve because the world keeps evolving. That said, political convictions usually stay concrete for decades. Abortion rights for women have been largely defended by the left for at least 4 decades. Romney changed his view on that when it was convenient.

You seem very annoyed at Democrats for the current attitudes towards foreign policy. Yes, Democrats actively preached about stopped the wars during Bush. Now they are quiet when Obama is in office. That said, we have been stopping the wars and our involvement in foreign affairs has been scaled back. That is fairly consistent with current democratic political goals. Libya was handled far differently then Republicans wanted. Syria has been handled far differently then Republicans have wanted. There is direction and degrees. The direction might be the same, but the degree is far different. The main party that wants a complete removal from the area is Libertarian...and im certain those followers would rather run into traffic before being labeled a democrat.

I am probably not going to get you to admit that the "scale back" you are talking about does not exist. Bush would have gotten tired of beating up on the same country for so long too.

I have the same view as Ralph Nader has, isn't he a liberal? He certainly does not think Obama is "scaling back" as you put it. I do not agree with him on a few things, but i have always admired that he is true to his beliefs, not a bought and paid for politician or one of the partisan hoards waiting to get their marching orders from Fox News or the Huff Post.

I am probably not going to get you to admit that the "scale back" you are talking about does not exist. Bush would have gotten tired of beating up on the same country for so long too.

I have the same view as Ralph Nader has, isn't he a liberal? He certainly does not think Obama is "scaling back" as you put it. I do not agree with him on a few things, but i have always admired that he is true to his beliefs, not a bought and paid for politician or one of the partisan hoards waiting to get their marching orders from Fox News or the Huff Post.

Probably not. What Bush would have done or not done is irrelevant, under his watch American troops overthrew governments and held the security of those nations under our protection. Are you suggesting that American troops have not withdraw from the area? That there are more troops in Iraq now then when Bush was in office? That our involvement in Libya cost more than our involvements in Afghan and Iraq? Its possible im mistaken, so if so please show me where you got the numbers from.

As painful as the memory is, as i have said before, i was a republican at the start of the Iraq war. I was the only one of my friends that did not think it was a good idea, but i was not where i am today.

Shortly after the start, the thought did cross my mind that i was wrong, but aside from that pretty much against it.

I have changed my view on the Torture subject also, back when i took our foreign policy seriously, i thought it was a tool that may bare fruit, now i do not respect our foreign policy enough to think we have the right to torture anyone.

And if i have not yet made it clear, i feel being anti war only when it serves your particular party is fairly disgusting.

Changing your opinion can happen to anyone, happens to me all the time, i have a problem with the partisan way of doing it, means nothing, just a game.

Probably not. What Bush would have done or not done is irrelevant, under his watch American troops overthrew governments and held the security of those nations under our protection. Are you suggesting that American troops have not withdraw from the area? That there are more troops in Iraq now then when Bush was in office? That our involvement in Libya cost more than our involvements in Afghan and Iraq? Its possible im mistaken, so if so please show me where you got the numbers from.

You are trying to get me into a black/white situation where one does not exist.

Obama is very good on wording, he is a lawyer after all. One of the first things i remember hearing about him was that he didn't take money from lobbyists, which sounded really good, and on its surface was true, but when you look into it further, it was just BS.

Obama wanted a headline that his minions could use endlessly, and you can see it at work here everyday.

Did the war REALLY end in Iraq? How about Yemen? Libya?

Back in January of 2010, Obama did something many would not give a second thought to, he broadened his war scope by declaring war on Al Qaeda. This was honestly brilliant (Axelrod probably) because it disconnected his war efforts from geography, and literally allowed him to do whatever he pleases in whatever country with that declaration to fall back on.

The hard numbers, as far as troops in combat I am having trouble finding, i will continue looking, but the final part to my argument is his increase in the drone program. This program is going to hurt us for generations to come, and shows an obvious increase from the Bush era.

I guess my point is, even after the war is over, it isn't over, they call it something else.

It is tough to tell the two candidates apart without visuals anyway. Obama has been an awful President, but has also been the best President since Eisenhower. Romney is one of the best Republican candidates in a while, but that is not really a ringing endorsement. Obama is going to win handily and nothing will change anyway, though.

How's South Korea?

Not every human is a manipulative, opportunistic, letch... or at least that's what I'm told.

You are trying to get me into a black/white situation where one does not exist.

Obama is very good on wording, he is a lawyer after all. One of the first things i remember hearing about him was that he didn't take money from lobbyists, which sounded really good, and on its surface was true, but when you look into it further, it was just BS.

Obama wanted a headline that his minions could use endlessly, and you can see it at work here everyday.

Did the war REALLY end in Iraq? How about Yemen? Libya?

Back in January of 2010, Obama did something many would not give a second thought to, he broadened his war scope by declaring war on Al Qaeda. This was honestly brilliant (Axelrod probably) because it disconnected his war efforts from geography, and literally allowed him to do whatever he pleases in whatever country with that declaration to fall back on.

The hard numbers, as far as troops in combat I am having trouble finding, i will continue looking, but the final part to my argument is his increase in the drone program. This program is going to hurt us for generations to come, and shows an obvious increase from the Bush era.

I guess my point is, even after the war is over, it isn't over, they call it something else.

Maybe 9954 can help with troop levels?

By no means, im not trying to make a black and white argument, im simply trying to understand what your specific objection is. Especially in this thread which is about "why to vote for" Romney.

And yes, Obama is very good at wording, and hes sold himself to lobbyist. I have laughed at Romney/Ryan's efforts to suggest Obama is for gun control, because Obama is an absolute coward when it comes to standing up to lobbyist. I dont think anyone on here(forum not thread) has suggested otherwise.

What about Yemen, Libya? I brought up Libya a few posts ago. Again, im not sure what your specific objection is towards. Obama supported the Libya citizens by shutting down air space and supplying their troops with weaponary. The casualty rates for our troops were none(none publically reported) and cost minimal. I personally view that as a much lesser evil compared to our involvement in Iraq and Afghan.

Im sorry, im not certain what your specific disagreement is about. If ive suggested that our war efforts against terrorists were over, i apologize. I was posting concerning our troop levels, direct involvement, and nation building. My personal view is that we are in conflict with terrorists groups and not nations, therefore we should focus on special forces and other programs(such as drones).

You asked me before on my stance with drones and i answered. I know it hurts us in future generations because we have created alot of enemies with those strikes. That said, Romney not only supports those strikes but wants to increase them and get involved with actually wars(i would define "wars" as the similar policies we pursued under Bush). Again, individual hypocracy is vastly different then political "concrete" convictions. Some party convictions have changed over decades as new information is discovered, Romney individual stances have changed depending on poll numbers.

By no means, im not trying to make a black and white argument, im simply trying to understand what your specific objection is. Especially in this thread which is about "why to vote for" Romney.

And yes, Obama is very good at wording, and hes sold himself to lobbyist. I have laughed at Romney/Ryan's efforts to suggest Obama is for gun control, because Obama is an absolute coward when it comes to standing up to lobbyist. I dont think anyone on here(forum not thread) has suggested otherwise.

What about Yemen, Libya? I brought up Libya a few posts ago. Again, im not sure what your specific objection is towards. Obama supported the Libya citizens by shutting down air space and supplying their troops with weaponary. The casualty rates for our troops were none(none publically reported) and cost minimal. I personally view that as a much lesser evil compared to our involvement in Iraq and Afghan.

Im sorry, im not certain what your specific disagreement is about. If ive suggested that our war efforts against terrorists were over, i apologize. I was posting concerning our troop levels, direct involvement, and nation building. My personal view is that we are in conflict with terrorists groups and not nations, therefore we should focus on special forces and other programs(such as drones).

You asked me before on my stance with drones and i answered. I know it hurts us in future generations because we have created alot of enemies with those strikes. That said, Romney not only supports those strikes but wants to increase them and get involved with actually wars(i would define "wars" as the similar policies we pursued under Bush). Again, individual hypocracy is vastly different then political "concrete" convictions. Some party convictions have changed over decades as new information is discovered, Romney individual stances have changed depending on poll numbers.

To be honest with you, and this is my fault, many times i get side tracked as far as the original post is. I read through the post, it may interest me, it may not, or i see an opinion i agree with, or one i do not, and i react.

If you've taken my comments as support for Romney, that is not what I intended. I also cannot argue with you about Romney only furthering our current foreign policy, his only plus is that he is actually a unknown, and could surprise me...probably not though.

What i was trying to explain, and doing it badly, even though it had nothing to do with the post is that as far as our aggressiveness in foreign policy, which i never thought to get any higher, managed to do so over the last 3 or so years, and that is ages away from what he campaigned on.